Criteria and Indicators for Strategic Urban Forest Planning and Management

W. Andy Kenney; Philip J.E. van Wassenaer; Alexander L. Satel

doi:10.48044/jauf.2011.015

Article Figures & Data

Tables

Community Framework
Criteria		Performance indicators			Key objective
Criteria	Low	Moderate	Good	Optimal	Key objective
Relative canopy cover	The existing canopy cover equals 0%–25% of the potential.	The existing canopy cover equals 25%–50% of the potential.	The existing canopy cover equals 50%–75% of the potential.	The existing canopy cover equals 75%–100% of the potential.	Achieve climate-appropriate degree of tree cover, community-wide
Age distribution of trees in the community	Any Relative DBH (RDBH) class (0%–25% RDBH, 26%–50% RDBH, etc.) represents more than 75% of the tree population.	Any RDBH class represents between 50% and 75% of the tree population.	No RDBH class represents more than 50% of the tree. population	25% of the tree population is in each of four RDBH classes.	Provide for uneven aged distribution citywide as well as at the neighborhood level.
Species suitability	Less than 50% of trees are of species considered suitable for the area.	50% to 75% of trees are of species considered suitable for the area.	More than 75% of trees are of species considered suitable for the area.	All trees are of species considered suitable for the area.	Establish a tree population suitable for the urban environment and adapted to the regional environment.
Species distribution	Fewer than five species dominate the entire tree population citywide.	No species represents more than 20% of the entire tree population citywide.	No species represents more than 10% of the entire tree population citywide.	No species represents more than 10% of the entire tree population at the neighborhood level.	Establish a genetically diverse tree population citywide as well as at the neighborhood level.
Condition of publicly owned trees (trees managed intensively)	No tree maintenance or risk assessment. Request based/reactive system. The condition of the urban forest is unknown.	Sample-based inventory indicating tree condition and risk level is in place.	Complete tree inventory that includes detailed tree condition ratings.	Complete tree inventory that includes detailed tree condition and risk ratings.	Detailed understanding of the condition and risk potential of all publicly- owned trees.
Publicly owned natural areas (trees managed extensively; e.g., woodlands, ravine lands, etc.)	No information about publicly owned natural areas.	Publicly owned natural areas identified in a “natural areas survey” or similar document.	The level and type of public use in publicly-owned natural areas is documented.	The ecological structure and function of all publicly-owned natural areas are documented and included in the citywide GIS.	Detailed understanding of the ecological structure and function of all publicly owned natural areas.
Native vegetation	No program of integration.	Voluntary use of native species on publicly and privately-owned lands; invasive species are recognized.	The use of native species is encouraged on a project-appropriate basis in both intensively and extensively managed areas; invasive species are recognized and their use is discouraged.	The use of native species is required on a project-appropriate basis in both intensively and extensively managed areas; invasive species are recognized and prohibited.	Preservation and enhancement of local natural biodiversity.

Community Framework
Criteria		Performance indicators			Key objective
	Low	Moderate	Good	Optimal
Public agency cooperation	Conflicting goals among departments and or agencies.	Common goals but no cooperation among departments and/or agencies.	Informal teams among departments and or agencies are functioning and implementing common goals on a project-specific basis.	Municipal policy implemented by formal interdepartmental/interagency working teams on all municipal projects.	Insure all city department cooperate with common goals and objectives.
Involvement of large private and institutional land holders	Ignorance of issues.	Educational materials and advice available to landholders.	Clear goals for tree resource by landholders. Incentives for preservation of private trees.	Landholders develop comprehensive tree management plans (including funding).	Large private landholders embrace citywide goals and objectives through specific resource management plans.
Green industry cooperation	No cooperation among segments of the green industry. No adherence to industry standards.	General cooperation among nurseries, tree care companies, etc.	Specific cooperative arrangements, such as purchase certificates for “right tree in the right place.”	Shared vision and goals including the use of professional standards.	The green industry operates with high professional standards and commits to citywide goals and objectives.
Neighborhood action	No action.	Isolated or limited number of active groups.	Citywide coverage and interaction.	All neighborhoods organized and cooperating.	At the neighborhood level, citizens understand and cooperate in urban forest management.
Citizen-municipality-business interaction	Conflicting goals among constituencies.	No interaction among constituencies.	Informal and/or general cooperation.	Formal interaction, such as a tree board with staff coordination.	All constituencies in the community interact for the benefit of the urban forest.
General awareness of trees as a community resource	Trees seen as a problem, a drain on budgets.	Trees seen as important to the community.	Trees acknowledged as providing environmental, social, and economic services.	Urban forest recognized as vital to the community’s environmental, social, and economic well-being.	The general public understands the role of the urban forest.
Regional cooperation	Communities cooperate independently.	Communities share similar policy vehicles.	Regional planning is in effect.	Regional planning, coordination, and/or management plans.	Provide for cooperation and interaction among neighboring communities and regional groups.

		Resource Management Approach
Criteria		Performance indicators			Key Objective
Criteria	Low	Moderate	Good	Optimal	Key Objective
Tree inventory	No inventory.	Complete or sample-based inventory of publicly-owned trees.	Complete inventory of publicly owned trees and sample-based inventory of privately-owned trees.	Complete inventory of publicly owned trees and sample-based inventory of privately-owned trees included in citywide GIS.	Complete inventory of the tree resource to direct its management, including age distribution, species mix, tree condition, and risk assessment.
Canopy cover inventory	No inventory.	Visual assessment.	Sampling of tree cover using aerial photographs or satellite imagery.	Sampling of tree cover using aerial photographs or satellite imagery included in citywide GIS.	High resolution assessments of the existing and potential canopy cover for the entire community.
Citywide management plan	No plan.	Existing plan limited in scope and implementation.	Comprehensive plan for publicly owned intensively-and extensively-managed forest resources are accepted and implemented.	Strategic multi-tiered plan for public and private intensively-and extensively-managed forest resources accepted and implemented with adaptive management mechanisms.	Develop and implement a comprehensive urban forest management plan for private and public property.
Municipality-wide funding	Funding for reactive management.	Funding to optimize existing urban forest.	Funding to provide for net increase in urban forest benefits.	Adequate private and public funding to sustain maximum urban forest benefits.	Develop and maintain adequate funding to implement a citywide urban forest management plan.
City staffing	No staff.	No training of existing staff.	Certified arborists and professional foresters on staff with regular professional development.	Multi-disciplinary team within the urban forestry unit.	Employ and train adequate staff to implement citywide urban forestry plan.
Tree establishment planning and implementation	Tree establishment is ad hoc.	Tree establishment occurs on an annual basis.	Tree establishment is directed by needs derived from a tree inventory.	Tree establishment is directed by needs derived from a tree inventory and is sufficient to meet canopy cover objectives (see canopy cover criterion, Appendix 1).	Urban forest renewal is ensured through a comprehensive tree establishment program driven by canopy cover, species diversity, and species distribution objectives.
Tree habitat suitability	Trees planted without consideration of the site conditions.	Tree species are considered in planting site selection.	Community-wide guidelines are in place for the improvement of planting sites and the selection of suitable species.	All trees planted in sites with adequate soil quality and quantity, and growing space to achieve their genetic potential.	All publicly owned trees are planted in habitats that will maximize current and future benefits provided to the site.
Maintenance of publicly owned, intensively managed trees	No maintenance of publicly owned trees.	Publicly owned trees are maintained on a request/reactive basis. No systematic (block) pruning.	All publicly owned trees are systematically maintained on a cycle longer than five years.	All mature publicly owned trees are maintained on a five-year cycle. All immature trees are structurally pruned.	All publicly owned trees are maintained to maximize current and future benefits. Tree health and condition ensure maximum longevity.
Tree risk management	No tree risk assessment/remediation program. Request based/reactive system. The condition of the urban forest is unknown.	Sample-based tree inventory including general tree risk information. Request-based/reactive risk abatement program system.	Complete tree inventory which includes detailed tree failure risk ratings; risk abatement program is in effect eliminating hazards within a maximum of one month from confirmation of hazard potential.	Complete tree inventory that includes detailed tree failure risk ratings; risk abatement program is in effect eliminating hazards within a maximum of one week from confirmation of hazard potential.	All publicly owned trees are safe.
Tree protection policy development and enforcement	No tree protection policy.	Policies in place to protect public trees.	Policies in place to protect public and private trees with enforcement.	Integrated municipal wide policies that ensure the protection of trees on public and private land are consistently enforced and supported by significant deterrents.	The benefits derived from large-stature trees are ensured by the enforcement of municipal wide policies.
Publicly owned natural areas management planning and implementation	No stewardship plans or implementation in effect.	Reactionary stewardship in effect to facilitate public use (e.g., hazard abatement, trail maintenance).	Stewardship plan in effect for each publicly owned natural area to facilitate public use (e.g. hazard abatement, trail maintenance, etc.).	Stewardship plan in effect for each publicly owned natural area focused on sustaining the ecological structure and function of the feature.	The ecological structure and function of all publicly-owned natural areas are protected and, where appropriate, enhanced.